Tennessee Senators Lamar Alexander and Bob Corker HAVE NOT committed to vote against ratification.Please go HERE to send them an email urging the to VOTE NO and protect this nation's sovereignty.

These videos were made when the Bush Administration was pushing for the ratification of this terrible treaty. Fortunately they were unsuccessful, but these give a good overview of the problem with LOST:

Borrowing the famous words of General Douglas MacArthur that "old soldiers never die, they just fade away," we can now see that old treaties never die, they can be resurrected years or even decades after taking what we thought was a knockout punch.

President George W. Bush is scheduled to announce any day that he will breathe new life into the old United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea which President Ronald Reagan rejected in 1982. Bush's National Security Adviser Stephen Hadley has asked Senate Foreign Relations Committee Chairman Joe Biden (D-DE) to secure Senate ratification "as early as possible."

To defuse expected opposition, the Bush Administration has been pursuing a most unusual lobbying campaign: inviting two or three prominent conservatives at a time to the White House without telling them in advance the purpose of the invitation or who will be present. After admission past executive office barricades, the conservatives are subjected to aggressive lobbying by Administration heavy hitters: usually the chief counsel for the State Department and the Judge Advocate General of the U.S. Navy. Read more here.

The Law of the Sea Treaty should be sunk

By: Ben Lerner
Special to The ExaminerApril 27, 2009

Supporters of American ratification of the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (aka the Law of the Sea Treaty, or LOST) tend to spout the following mantra:

(1) Ratification of LOST provides critical benefits for America in energy, navigation and other areas;

(2) A list of high-profile personages support LOST, including former presidents from both parties, the Navy, the oil industry and others; and

(3) Critics are “ideologues” who, acting on a purely knee-jerk suspicion of the U.N., have “hijacked” ratification of LOST and are irrationally preventing the U.S. from taking advantage of this no-brainer. Read more here

Sinister Secrets of the U.N. Sea Treaty

AIM Column | By Cliff Kincaid | November 5, 2007

The shocking truth is that the Law of the Sea Treaty, which could come up for a full Senate vote at any time, was largely written by people like Sam Levering, a World Federalist devoted to world government.

The former editor of the New York Times editorial page says it is “crazy” to be opposed to the U.N.‘s Law of the Sea Treaty and she can’t understand why it has become a hot-button issue in the Republican presidential race. Gail Collins declared in a November 3 column in the Times that the measure simply clarifies “rules for navigation and mining in international waters” and sets up “a system for settling disputes.” Those opposed to it, she says, are spinning “conspiracy theories.” But Collins is doing the spinning.

What if there were evidence that the treaty was the product of those who believe in world government financed by global taxes? Hold on to your seats.

The true story of how the Law of the Sea Treaty came into being is a fascinating one that I have investigated for several years. I researched the matter at the United Nations Division for Ocean Affairs and the Law of the Sea in New York City and at the Friends Historical Collection at Guilford College in North Carolina. The Guilford College papers demonstrate the activities that engaged Sam and Miriam Levering as they wrote and promoted this treaty. The Leverings,a husband and wife team who were Quakers and World Federalists, helped write the treaty and lobbied for it through a non-governmental organization called the Neptune Group.

You have probably never heard of them before. But the November 4 edition of the Mount Airy (North Carolina) News gives a hint of the truth. It reports that Sam Levering “played a key role in formulating” the treaty and was recognized for that role during a symposium there onOctober 12. Read more here.

Law of the Sea Treaty Threatens Sovereigny

Guest Column | By Paul M. Weyrich | November 23, 2004

Conflicts involving LOST will not be settled by our country’s courts but by an international tribunal.

The election may be over and conservatives have won, but that does not mean we can relax. We still need to stand guard to protect our nation's sovereignty. The Senate Foreign Relations Committee voted in February to send the Law of the Sea Treaty (LOST) to the Senate Floor. Fortunately, conservatives and other defenders of American sovereignty derailed the effort to rush the Treaty to the Senate floor for a quick vote on ratification. Next year, with a new Congress, the forces in favor of the Treaty would like to have LOST ratified by the Senate. If they try to make their wish become a reality, conservatives must rise up in defense of our country and its sovereignty.

The grassroots of the conservative movement have a very important role to play by exercising continued vigilance. National conservative leaders -- Senator Jim Inhofe (R-OK), Phyllis Schlafly of Eagle Forum, Frank Gaffney of the Center for Security Policy and myself -- are starting to speak out now on this vital issue. So is Dr. Peter Leitner of George Mason University, author of Reforming the Law of the Sea Treaty. We intend to do our part to fight against ratification of this sovereignty-destroying Treaty. But it is your voice that your State's U.S. Senators and U.S. Representative will heed when deciding just where they stand on LOST.

Remember: Arrayed against the defenders of sovereignty who oppose LOST are a collection of corporate and environmental and governmental interests --including the United States Navy and Senator Richard Lugar (R-IN), Chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. The backers of this Treaty -- the big corporations and the environmentalists -- have the money to wage an expensive campaign in the hope that they can persuade the Senate to ratify it. It should come as no surprise to conservatives that The New York Times published an editorial in late August urging quick ratification of LOST, criticizing those who are defenders of our nation's sovereignty as a noisy group of misguided gadflies. Read more here.

There is an ongoing debate regarding the position of President Ronald Reagan in regard to the U.N. Convention on the Law of the Sea, better known as the Law of the Sea Treaty (LOST). Fortunately, there are multiple sources indicating precisely what Reagan would do if presented with LOST today: He would reject it.

President Reagan on LOST

On January 29, 1982, Reagan issued a Presidential Statement expressing his intention to reject LOST. It said, "While most provisions of the draft convention are acceptable and consistent with United States interests, some major elements of the deep seabed mining regime are not acceptable."

The proponents of LOST selectively use Reagan's statement to support their contention that the seabed mining provisions were the only source of Reagan's objections to LOST. For example, in recent Senate testimony, Deputy Secretary of State John Negroponte testified that Reagan declined to sign LOST solely "[d]ue to deep flaws in the deep seabed mining chapter--Part XI of the Convention" and that subsequent negotiations had resolved "each of the objections that President Reagan had identified. Read more here.

The Top Five Reasons Why Conservatives Should Oppose the U.N. Convention on the Law of the Sea

The Senate Foreign Relations Committee will hold hearings this week on whether the United States should ratify the U.N. Convention on the Law of the Sea. Twenty-five years ago, President Ronald Reagan rejected the treaty—and rightly so. Today, the convention remains a threat to American interests.

Reason #1: The Treaty Will Undermine U.S. Sovereignty.
President Reagan rejected the Law of the Sea Convention in 1982 and cited several major deficiencies, none of which have been remedied. Reagan was concerned that the U.S., though a major naval power, would have little influence at the International Seabed Authority that the convention created. Although the Authority is supposed to make decisions by consensus, nothing prevents the rest of the "international community" from consistently voting against the United States, as regularly occurs in similar U.N. bodies, such as the General Assembly. In addition, President Reagan was troubled by the fact that the International Seabed Authority has the power to amend the convention without U.S. consent. That concern has also not been remedied in the intervening years. Read more here.